I’m almost the same as OP, but I wouldn’t call it “head in the sand”. For the past few years, the media has been exaggerating everything and creating mass hysteria. If you follow the news closely, you’ll think the world is about to end: Wars, economical depressions, climate changes, new pandemics, etc…
Stop following the news, and you won’t notice a thing. Probably the price increases, but other than that, your life is the same.
You get what you pay for with free news. I’ve been subscribed to The Economist for a few years and all my news is delivered calmly and emotionlessly and backed up by data and research.
I feel much better and I’m still up to date on real news, not political theatre and recreational rage.
Oatmeal is predictable, pretty healthy depending on your toppings, and filling. It is not overly exciting and doesn’t cause much emotional response. You still should to eat more than oatmeal, though. Quality, but diversity too. The Economist has had a reliable capital bias since its inception (it’s so old you can read them hand wringing for what the end of American slavery is going to do to business). Doesn’t mean their stuff is bad. You probably do consume more than oatmeal and I don’t mean to paint you as univerous (did I make that up? moniverous?) but I thought I’d put this message out there.
Alright, so you don’t acknowledge the problem, still fits the definition.
Fair enough on most of those areas you mentioned by the way, wars, economical depression, and the pandemic have been exaggerated, with the serious caveat on the latter that that was unclear at the time so you had to err on the side of caution. But it’s kind of the opposite with climate change IMHO. Scientists have kept to rather conservative projections so as to not cause panic and apathy in the general public, but over the last years new measurements have outpaced those predictions at practically every step of the way.
Alright, so you don’t acknowledge the problem, still fits the definition.
I’d hate for our discussion to be about semantics, but I’m saying that we don’t believe in the problem. If I’d say “Hey, regarding the vampire situation, you have your head in the sand, because you won’t acknowledge the problem”, it wouldn’t be an accurate statement, or correct usage of the phrase.
I’d hate for our discussion to be about semantics,
Semi-off-topic rant incoming, but hard disagree on this one. This is a really weird statement that is commonly used for the opposite of what it actually means (although not in this case). I don’t enjoy syntactical discussion, e.g. whether I used the wrong sentence structure or whatever, as long as the meaning is clear. But discussion on “the meaning of words”, i.e. their semantics, is absolutely necessary in many cases, here about whether we use the same definition of this idiom. You can’t properly communicate without that, so if you don’t discuss semantics where appropriate you are talking at each other instead of with each other, despite using the same language.
but I’m saying that we don’t believe in the problem.
Case in point here, you are operating from your intuitive definition of the head-in-the-sand idiom which doesn’t fit the situation at hand, I’m operating from the Merriam-Webster definition which does fit the situation at hand.
Just to be clear, I don’t intend any judgement here, just saying it fits that one specific definition of this idiom, which is why I quoted it originally.
As stated in the grandparent of this comment I can agree with many of your examples, so I understand your revulsion of categorising your behaviour as sticking your head into the sand. But to people who recognise and acknowledge the problem, unlike you who recognises but doesn’t acknowledge the problem, you are sticking your head into the sand.
Climate change is probably the most clearly a “big fucking issue” for mankind. I’m fully aware it’s going to kill a huge portion of the population before the end of this century and that I’m probably going to be one of them. I don’t expect to retire or have any kind of life beyond MAYBE 60 because we’ll be locked in famine wars and constant civil unrest.
The rise of global fascism and it’s persecution of “the other” or “enemies of the state” as seen in the USA, Israel, China, Russia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, The Philippines, and many South American and African nations is another major issue that’s being largely ignored and/or actively progressed by an alarming number of people today. Is another thing that is being underplayed in the media and it going to ADD TO the major global instability that climate change is going to cause.
OP is in their mid-40s. They’re probably going to be one of the last generations to live in the golden age of humanity’s leisure. Everyone else is going to live their life starving and fighting for a seat at the table or dying in wars.
My point is- people 45 and up can afford to bury their heads about all of those things because they’ll never have to worry about it getting cut off before they’re ready to pull it out.
Climate change is probably the most clearly a “big fucking issue” for mankind. I’m fully aware it’s going to kill a huge portion of the population before the end of this century and that I’m probably going to be one of them. I don’t expect to retire or have any kind of life beyond MAYBE 60 because we’ll be locked in famine wars and constant civil unrest.
Can’t say I haven’t wandered those paths of thought, but what keeps nagging at the back of my mind is the possibility of a positive feedback loop of ecosystem collapse, cascading through all of it. From my limited understanding it’s somewhat likely to happen but nobody can tell the exact likelihood or outcome. Best guess likelihood of it happening climbs exponentially between 1.5°C and 5°C of warming, which is why limiting warming to 1°C was determined as a threshold initially and subsequently raised to 1.5°C because 1°C became a pipe dream. Depending on how pessimistically you want to do your measurements we have now already reached those 1.5°C of warming.
The rise of global fascism and it’s persecution of “the other” or “enemies of the state” as seen in the USA, Israel, China, Russia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, The Philippines, and many South American and African nations is another major issue that’s being largely ignored and/or actively progressed by an alarming number of people today. Is another thing that is being underplayed in the media and it going to ADD TO the major global instability that climate change is going to cause.
Yeah tell me about it, the far right party in Germany keeps getting new poll records, now breaking 20%. In fucking Germany! Thought I’d never see the day. And therein lies the crux. I think the move towards the right on a global scale is in large part reactionary towards the largest problem on a global scale happening right now, which is climate change. Of which we keep seeing incrementally bigger symptoms, chiefly among them in this context migration as well as economic problems related and unrelated to that. The sensory information of our society already indicates how vast this problem will be. And unless the underlying cause is fixed, this trend won’t reverse itself; On the contrary, we will see democracies collapse left, right, and centre, pun intended.
OP is in their mid-40s.
Ok, this is too ad hominem for me, so I’m going to disregard that part of the argument.
The Clathrate gun hypothesis scares me big time. Probably because in this older science fiction novel the aliens were going to blow up part of the ocean floor to create the hot atmosphere they needed.
I agree with this, and I consume very little news media these days.
I still think being involved in politics is pretty important if we want to make things better. I usually end up doing a bunch of research into all the policies any time there’s an election or something else I can vote on. I kind of treat it like I’m cramming for an exam, that way I can spend 90% of my time free of politics and bullshit.
I agree with you that the media is exaggerating and over reporting on negative things. That’s how they make money. The loss of the subscription model and the 24hr News cycle really hurt objective reporting that’s why I said I don’t blame you or OP for “head in the sanding it”.
If it’s better for your mental health to get rid of that shit- you do you. I’ll probably be there in a couple years if this shit don’t stop. I’m cut out a significant ammount of doom scrolling myself- especially since I left Reddit.
I’ve never understood that part tbh “if it’s better for your mental health” we don’t really have time for that right now. Especially because this mentality is what led to our exact situation. People only worrying about the small scale picture that is their life while everything burns around them.
I’m almost the same as OP, but I wouldn’t call it “head in the sand”. For the past few years, the media has been exaggerating everything and creating mass hysteria. If you follow the news closely, you’ll think the world is about to end: Wars, economical depressions, climate changes, new pandemics, etc…
Stop following the news, and you won’t notice a thing. Probably the price increases, but other than that, your life is the same.
You get what you pay for with free news. I’ve been subscribed to The Economist for a few years and all my news is delivered calmly and emotionlessly and backed up by data and research.
I feel much better and I’m still up to date on real news, not political theatre and recreational rage.
Oatmeal is predictable, pretty healthy depending on your toppings, and filling. It is not overly exciting and doesn’t cause much emotional response. You still should to eat more than oatmeal, though. Quality, but diversity too. The Economist has had a reliable capital bias since its inception (it’s so old you can read them hand wringing for what the end of American slavery is going to do to business). Doesn’t mean their stuff is bad. You probably do consume more than oatmeal and I don’t mean to paint you as univerous (did I make that up? moniverous?) but I thought I’d put this message out there.
Yeah I agree. I’m mostly talking about what you’ll find on Twitter and big subreddits.
Well I understand the impetus, but that’s literally the definition of the head-in-the-sand idiom according to Merriam-Webster:
I’m saying that we are not unwilling to recognize a problem, the problem itself is greatly exaggerated, or even non-existent.
Alright, so you don’t acknowledge the problem, still fits the definition.
Fair enough on most of those areas you mentioned by the way, wars, economical depression, and the pandemic have been exaggerated, with the serious caveat on the latter that that was unclear at the time so you had to err on the side of caution. But it’s kind of the opposite with climate change IMHO. Scientists have kept to rather conservative projections so as to not cause panic and apathy in the general public, but over the last years new measurements have outpaced those predictions at practically every step of the way.
I’d hate for our discussion to be about semantics, but I’m saying that we don’t believe in the problem. If I’d say “Hey, regarding the vampire situation, you have your head in the sand, because you won’t acknowledge the problem”, it wouldn’t be an accurate statement, or correct usage of the phrase.
Semi-off-topic rant incoming, but hard disagree on this one. This is a really weird statement that is commonly used for the opposite of what it actually means (although not in this case). I don’t enjoy syntactical discussion, e.g. whether I used the wrong sentence structure or whatever, as long as the meaning is clear. But discussion on “the meaning of words”, i.e. their semantics, is absolutely necessary in many cases, here about whether we use the same definition of this idiom. You can’t properly communicate without that, so if you don’t discuss semantics where appropriate you are talking at each other instead of with each other, despite using the same language.
Case in point here, you are operating from your intuitive definition of the head-in-the-sand idiom which doesn’t fit the situation at hand, I’m operating from the Merriam-Webster definition which does fit the situation at hand.
Just to be clear, I don’t intend any judgement here, just saying it fits that one specific definition of this idiom, which is why I quoted it originally.
As stated in the grandparent of this comment I can agree with many of your examples, so I understand your revulsion of categorising your behaviour as sticking your head into the sand. But to people who recognise and acknowledge the problem, unlike you who recognises but doesn’t acknowledge the problem, you are sticking your head into the sand.
Climate change is probably the most clearly a “big fucking issue” for mankind. I’m fully aware it’s going to kill a huge portion of the population before the end of this century and that I’m probably going to be one of them. I don’t expect to retire or have any kind of life beyond MAYBE 60 because we’ll be locked in famine wars and constant civil unrest.
The rise of global fascism and it’s persecution of “the other” or “enemies of the state” as seen in the USA, Israel, China, Russia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, The Philippines, and many South American and African nations is another major issue that’s being largely ignored and/or actively progressed by an alarming number of people today. Is another thing that is being underplayed in the media and it going to ADD TO the major global instability that climate change is going to cause.
OP is in their mid-40s. They’re probably going to be one of the last generations to live in the golden age of humanity’s leisure. Everyone else is going to live their life starving and fighting for a seat at the table or dying in wars.
My point is- people 45 and up can afford to bury their heads about all of those things because they’ll never have to worry about it getting cut off before they’re ready to pull it out.
Can’t say I haven’t wandered those paths of thought, but what keeps nagging at the back of my mind is the possibility of a positive feedback loop of ecosystem collapse, cascading through all of it. From my limited understanding it’s somewhat likely to happen but nobody can tell the exact likelihood or outcome. Best guess likelihood of it happening climbs exponentially between 1.5°C and 5°C of warming, which is why limiting warming to 1°C was determined as a threshold initially and subsequently raised to 1.5°C because 1°C became a pipe dream. Depending on how pessimistically you want to do your measurements we have now already reached those 1.5°C of warming.
For reference: Wikipedia:Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system#Cascading_tipping_points
Yeah tell me about it, the far right party in Germany keeps getting new poll records, now breaking 20%. In fucking Germany! Thought I’d never see the day. And therein lies the crux. I think the move towards the right on a global scale is in large part reactionary towards the largest problem on a global scale happening right now, which is climate change. Of which we keep seeing incrementally bigger symptoms, chiefly among them in this context migration as well as economic problems related and unrelated to that. The sensory information of our society already indicates how vast this problem will be. And unless the underlying cause is fixed, this trend won’t reverse itself; On the contrary, we will see democracies collapse left, right, and centre, pun intended.
Ok, this is too ad hominem for me, so I’m going to disregard that part of the argument.
Re: Tipping points
The Clathrate gun hypothesis scares me big time. Probably because in this older science fiction novel the aliens were going to blow up part of the ocean floor to create the hot atmosphere they needed.
I agree with this, and I consume very little news media these days.
I still think being involved in politics is pretty important if we want to make things better. I usually end up doing a bunch of research into all the policies any time there’s an election or something else I can vote on. I kind of treat it like I’m cramming for an exam, that way I can spend 90% of my time free of politics and bullshit.
I agree with you that the media is exaggerating and over reporting on negative things. That’s how they make money. The loss of the subscription model and the 24hr News cycle really hurt objective reporting that’s why I said I don’t blame you or OP for “head in the sanding it”.
If it’s better for your mental health to get rid of that shit- you do you. I’ll probably be there in a couple years if this shit don’t stop. I’m cut out a significant ammount of doom scrolling myself- especially since I left Reddit.
I’ve never understood that part tbh “if it’s better for your mental health” we don’t really have time for that right now. Especially because this mentality is what led to our exact situation. People only worrying about the small scale picture that is their life while everything burns around them.